Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28174038›Full record

ArticleAppetite2017

Fourth-grade children's dietary reporting accuracy by meal component: Results from a validation study that manipulated retention interval and prompts.

Suzanne D Baxter, David B Hitchcock, Julie A Royer, Albert F Smith, Caroline H Guinn

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Appetite, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Suzanne D BaxterCollege of Social Work, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA. Electronic address: sbaxter@mailbox.sc.edu.
David B HitchcockDepartment of Statistics, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA. Electronic address: hitchcock@stat.sc.edu.
Julie A RoyerInstitute for Families in Society, College of Social Work, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29208, USA. Electronic address: Julie.Royer@rfa.sc.gov.
Albert F SmithDepartment of Psychology, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH 44114, USA. Electronic address: a.f.smith@csuohio.edu.
Caroline H GuinnInstitute for Families in Society, College of Social Work, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29208, USA. Electronic address: cguinn@hotmail.com.

Funding

Children's Dietary Recalls: Prompts, Retention Interval, and AccuracyR01HL103737 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA AT COLUMBIA · PI BAXTER, SUZANNE DOMEL · 2010 to 2014
$2.7M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL103737
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We examined reporting accuracy by meal component (beverage, bread, breakfast meat, combination entrée, condiment, dessert, entrée, fruit, vegetable) with validation-study data on 455 fourth-grade children (mean age = 9.92 ± 0.41 years) observed eating school meals and randomized to one of eight dietary recall conditions (two retention intervals [short, long] crossed with four prompts [forward, meal-name, open, reverse]). Accuracy category (match [observed and reported], omission [observed but unreported], intrusion [unobserved but reported]) was a polytomous nominal item response variable. We fit a multilevel cumulative logit model with item variables meal component and serving period (breakfast, lunch) and child variables retention interval, prompt and sex. Significant accuracy category predictors were meal component (p < 0.0003), retention interval (p < 0.0003), meal-component × serving-period (p < 0.0003) and meal-component × retention-interval (p = 0.001). The relationship of meal component and accuracy category was much stronger for lunch than breakfast. For lunch, beverages were matches more often, omissions much less often and intrusions more often than expected under independence; fruits and desserts were omissions more often. For the meal-component × retention-interval interaction, for the short retention interval, beverages were intrusions much more often but combination entrées and condiments were intrusions less often; for the long retention interval, beverages were matches more often and omissions less often but fruits were matches less often. Accuracy for each meal component appeared better with the short than long retention interval. For lunch and for the short retention interval, children's reporting was most accurate for entrée and combination entrée meal components, whereas it was least accurate for vegetable and fruit meal components. Results have implications for conclusions of studies and interventions assessed with dietary recalls obtained from children.

Indexed as

Mental RecallChildDietDiet SurveysEatingFemaleHumansMaleMealsReproducibility of ResultsStudentsTime FactorsChildrenDietary recallMeal componentReporting accuracySchool meals

Identifiers

PMID28174038
PMCPMC5391147

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.